An Idea for a Revolutionary Praxis

[Gasolinerainbow]

I have an idea for a novel anarchist revolutionary strategy. Any feedback would be very helpful.

My strategy opposes the Bolshevik revolutionary praxis whereby the vanguard of the working class seizes state power to centrally control the means of production, and instead advocates gaining partial ownership of the means of production from below. This would involve strike action and other forms of pressure placed upon private capital to force them to relinquish a certain amount of hours or amount of produce to worker self-management, where workers control what is produced and have ownership of what is produced. This can also mean a certain amount of farm land granted to worker self-management, as well as a certain amount of time allocated for workers control of the means of distribution, such as lorries. This will be hard to achieve but, as described, it will be pushed in two ways. Both through pressure exerted in the form of strikes, and through negotiations in which a certain amount produced when working under capitalist relations is agreed upon before workers control can start, or even gaining worker control at night.

The next part answers the flaw that may seem apparent at this point. This does not rely on people working twice as much, both within capitalist work-time and the self-managed time, particularly as they are likely already overworked. Instead work sharing is a way to overcome the problem. One employed worker and an unemployed individual share a job and its wages, also sharing the unemployment benefit. Their split wages are then subsidised from above by members of the middle class. By halving their working hours, free-time is opened up to work under democratic self-management of the means of production and distribution.

What is then sought is a partially liberated supply chain, so for example an area of farm land is liberated, an amount of time with a lorry, and perhaps a kitchen of a restaurant that has been freed for worker democratic management at night-time when the restaurant would normally be closed. The chain of production and distribution, albeit under constrained conditions, will thus be operating under democratic horizontal organisation. Perhaps at night time workers can eat food in the liberated restaurants grown or raised, distributed and prepared all outside of capitalism in another system of worker control. Of course nobody pays for the food, and we actively confront the issue of equal distribution, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, we will have to decide collectively who may need more than others etc.

The work-sharing element also lends itself perfectly to a rotational form of self-management and self-governance, as at any one time half the members of this radical union will be working under capitalist relations, while the other half is co-ordinating the work-sharing (organizing the sharing of work while being receptive to the democratic will of the workers to choose, when possible, what work to undertake both in capitalist and liberated time), performing the self-managed production and distribution, self-governing the allocation of food and other products of liberated labour, and setting up squats and spreading propaganda about the movement which I will go into later. Then this will be rotated to the other half, thus preserving a horizontal, democratic and rotational structure that does not present the opportunity for a Stalinist corruption of a bureaucracy leading to centralised power.

During their time opened up to worker democratic management, squatting arrangements can be sought. Most first world countries have vast amounts of empty houses and buildings, these will be democratically appropriated by the radical union for living and organising and recreational means. By refusing to pay rent this also cuts down the costs necessary for middle class subsidisation of work-sharing, thus making it more appealing amongst the mass population to take part. These costs are also decreased as more supply chains are partially liberated, supplying clothes, food and other means of life to the union outside of the capitalist value and money system.

Within the squatting living arrangements of the radical union will be the erosion of the traditional nuclear family and a return to almost tribal communal relations. Crucially, at the same time, the whole previously described process of rotational horizontal worker self-management and self-governance will amount to a change in human nature in its participants towards the ability to live under real democracy.

Any one radical union organization will be partial in its size because of the partial nature of the liberated supply chains, in terms of time and what is produced. By keeping the organisations relatively small then there will be enough fully functioning partially liberated supply chains to make half the time participating in the union consist of producing and distributing the conditions of existence as if already in an anarchist society. So the point in which the amount of middle class subsidisation required decreases is interesting, as under these conditions there could be a flow of people from all across the nation and world in and out of the radical unions for an amount of time so that they may cultivate within them a democratic nature and willingness to dismantle capitalism and replace it with this anarchist system.

At this point I advocate Rosa Luxembourg notion of an indefinite general strike where all production under capitalist relations is withdrawn by workers, who then have to organise things independently in order to survive. The crucial difference under my suggestion to Luxembourg is that the population will already be equipped and predisposed to pure democratic organisation, or at least large amounts that can help set up the alternative and teach others. However we here encounter the threat of bolshevism and other counter revolutionary forces, the army, the police, outside armies, all the backward forces of corrupt power. This is where we need to talk about violence.

I believe militant anarchist action in the present could constitute urban guerrilla warfare training for a future people's army. However, I am not referring to violence committed towards other people such as police in the present but instead learning police tactics and resisting things like kettling during protests by organising in certain ways, some force used to get through locked doors to occupy locations, examples like that. This decentralised people's army can eventually protect radical union squats and, with a building of knowledge about police strategy, can help to co-ordinate the mass popular ghandian side of the Luxembourgist anarchist revolution, which would involve hundreds gathered round democratically controlled factories and infrastructure. Of course this should still be seen as an act of violence as the police and army could kill some people and the revolution would be responsible for those deaths even when the violence is committed by the enemy. However, confronted with hundreds of people peacefully surrounding these buildings holding hands, this could be a sight that would override the institutional soft-wiring of members of the police and armies so that they take off their uniforms and join the revolution.

[Rudolf]

Tbh, it kinda sounds like a mix between coops and traditional business structure.


My question is if a movement is strong enough to vie for social control why stop at half measures for a breather?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

pipe dream. next.

[Gasolinerainbow]

Tbh, it kinda sounds like a mix between coops and traditional business structure.


My question is if a movement is strong enough to vie for social control why stop at half measures for a breather?

What is carved out isn't traditional business structure, it is worker self-management, and the product of that labour is not then sold but distributed equally, therefore involving self-governance. Its just that its carved out partially from private capital's use of the means of production and distribution, instead of trying to gain whole factories and all the parts of production at once or seizing the state to centrally control all production.

And it doesn't stop at half measures, the indefinite general strike which would then direct the population towards the alternative system in order to survive is not half measures.

[Armchair Partisan]

This would involve strike action and other forms of pressure placed upon private capital to force them to relinquish a certain amount of hours or amount of produce to worker self-management, where workers control what is produced and have ownership of what is produced. This can also mean a certain amount of farm land granted to worker self-management,

I've seen this called "workers' self-exploitation", and I think that describes the problem in a fitting way.


as well as a certain amount of time allocated for workers control of the means of distribution, such as lorries. This will be hard to achieve but, as described, it will be pushed in two ways. Both through pressure exerted in the form of strikes, and through negotiations in which a certain amount produced when working under capitalist relations is agreed upon before workers control can start, or even gaining worker control at night.

Okay, first of all, these are not "two ways", the negotiations are a result of the strikes. Without striking (or another means of coercion), the workers have zero bargaining power. Secondly, this just sounds way too convoluted to me.


The next part answers the flaw that may seem apparent at this point. This does not rely on people working twice as much, both within capitalist work-time and the self-managed time, particularly as they are likely already overworked. Instead work sharing is a way to overcome the problem. One employed worker and an unemployed individual share a job and its wages, also sharing the unemployment benefit. Their split wages are then subsidised from above by members of the middle class. By halving their working hours, free-time is opened up to work under democratic self-management of the means of production and distribution.

What is this mysterious "middle class" you speak about? Are you expecting the labor aristocracy to subsidize the poorer strata of the working class all by itself? Or the petit bourgeoisie (ha!)?


What is then sought is a partially liberated supply chain, so for example an area of farm land is liberated, an amount of time with a lorry, and perhaps a kitchen of a restaurant that has been freed for worker democratic management at night-time when the restaurant would normally be closed. The chain of production and distribution, albeit under constrained conditions, will thus be operating under democratic horizontal organisation. Perhaps at night time workers can eat food in the liberated restaurants grown or raised, distributed and prepared all outside of capitalism in another system of worker control. Of course nobody pays for the food, and we actively confront the issue of equal distribution, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, we will have to decide collectively who may need more than others etc.

The work-sharing element also lends itself perfectly to a rotational form of self-management and self-governance, as at any one time half the members of this radical union will be working under capitalist relations, while the other half is co-ordinating the work-sharing (organizing the sharing of work while being receptive to the democratic will of the workers to choose, when possible, what work to undertake both in capitalist and liberated time), performing the self-managed production and distribution, self-governing the allocation of food and other products of liberated labour, and setting up squats and spreading propaganda about the movement which I will go into later. Then this will be rotated to the other half, thus preserving a horizontal, democratic and rotational structure that does not present the opportunity for a Stalinist corruption of a bureaucracy leading to centralised power.

I see no way to really get this much workers' power without being able to just stage an outright revolution.


Within the squatting living arrangements of the radical union will be the erosion of the traditional nuclear family and a return to almost tribal communal relations. Crucially, at the same time, the whole previously described process of rotational horizontal worker self-management and self-governance will amount to a change in human nature in its participants towards the ability to live under real democracy.

And the capitalists will just do nothing in the meanwhile?


I believe militant anarchist action in the present could constitute urban guerrilla warfare training for a future people's army. However, I am not referring to violence committed towards other people such as police in the present but instead learning police tactics and resisting things like kettling during protests by organising in certain ways, some force used to get through locked doors to occupy locations, examples like that. This decentralised people's army can eventually protect radical union squats and, with a building of knowledge about police strategy, can help to co-ordinate the mass popular ghandian side of the Luxembourgist anarchist revolution, which would involve hundreds gathered round democratically controlled factories and infrastructure.

These tactics need to be learned before we can even get to the "workers' self-exploitation in the afternoon" part, no?


Of course this should still be seen as an act of violence as the police and army could kill some people and the revolution would be responsible for those deaths even when the violence is committed by the enemy. However, confronted with hundreds of people peacefully surrounding these buildings holding hands, this could be a sight that would override the institutional soft-wiring of members of the police and armies so that they take off their uniforms and join the revolution.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. The way to convert members of the police and army is by trying to foster class consciousness within them, not by singing Kumbaya or whatever. I've got bad news for you - army training has been designed in such a way that the soldiers can just massacre the whole assembly and repress their feelings of guilt about it until much later - maybe by the time of their retirement.

It's great that you're trying to think of original ideas, but a lot of this just doesn't make sense. Besides, the greatest question of the contemporary workers' movement is not how to resist police aggression or how to organize a socialist society, but how to make ourselves relevant again and spread class consciousness to our fellow workers, to begin with. If we can figure that out, everything else will follow naturally.

[Gasolinerainbow]

How would it be self-exploitation to work half your original job under capitalist relations and then the other half under self-management and self-governance? By the nature of the latter there is no coercion from above or alienation from labour and each other.

There may, however, be an element of self-exploitation in my next point though. You mention that workers have no bargaining power without striking to achieve use of fixed capital for worker control. Thats not the case if negotiations involve making the point that capital will be getting two workers for the price of one and an agreement is made to produce slightly more than what would have been produced with just one worker, as long as when that point is reached the use of technology will be given to the workers. This would involve harder work from both workers but for less time, in order to carve out this liberated production/distribution.

In terms of the middle class subsidisation of the work sharing, don't overestimate the scope of one of these radical unions. Perhaps a hundred at its peak. And it would obviously start with 10-20, which could get a supply chain to start things off.

In terms of your point about class consciousness, I think if an organisation of people managed to create a microcosmic anarchist society, in which most if not all of the conditions of existence was produced and given out under worker-self management and self-governance, then not only would the people coming in and out gain class consciousness by their exposure to classless life, but others, including police, would be exposed to the phenomenon via social media with videos of life inside the union hopefully going viral etc.

Thats what it comes down to for me. Its about giving the world real proof society can be organised under anarchism. I do obviously understand these ideas are very problematic and I'm really just trying to have an imagination. But I would say that if this happened even in one city with a relatively small amount of people it would be quite significant, and it may raise a sort of class consciousness.

[John Nada]

I have an idea for a novel anarchist revolutionary strategy. Any feedback would be very helpful.Okay, but I don't think this is novel or an effective revolutionary strategy.
My strategy opposes the Bolshevik revolutionary praxis whereby the vanguard of the working class seizes state power to centrally control the means of production, and instead advocates gaining partial ownership of the means of production from below. This would involve strike action and other forms of pressure placed upon private capital to force them to relinquish a certain amount of hours or amount of produce to worker self-management, where workers control what is produced and have ownership of what is produced. This can also mean a certain amount of farm land granted to worker self-management, as well as a certain amount of time allocated for workers control of the means of distribution, such as lorries. This will be hard to achieve but, as described, it will be pushed in two ways. Both through pressure exerted in the form of strikes, and through negotiations in which a certain amount produced when working under capitalist relations is agreed upon before workers control can start, or even gaining worker control at night.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power If they workers have enough power to take the factory at night, why even let the capitalist run it during the day? Why not worker's control by day, capitalist concession at night if for some strange reason it's required?
The next part answers the flaw that may seem apparent at this point. This does not rely on people working twice as much, both within capitalist work-time and the self-managed time, particularly as they are likely already overworked. Instead work sharing is a way to overcome the problem. One employed worker and an unemployed individual share a job and its wages, also sharing the unemployment benefit. Their split wages are then subsidised from above by members of the middle class. By halving their working hours, free-time is opened up to work under democratic self-management of the means of production and distribution.Why not just make it all worker's time? If the workers can't take the workplace, couldn't they just get a raise, then collect dues? Or at least appropriated goods illegally? If the worker's need money in the meantime, couldn't it come from taxing the middle classes(small businesspeople, managers, farmers and high-paid workers?) in liberated areas?
What is then sought is a partially liberated supply chain, so for example an area of farm land is liberated, an amount of time with a lorry, and perhaps a kitchen of a restaurant that has been freed for worker democratic management at night-time when the restaurant would normally be closed. The chain of production and distribution, albeit under constrained conditions, will thus be operating under democratic horizontal organisation. Perhaps at night time workers can eat food in the liberated restaurants grown or raised, distributed and prepared all outside of capitalism in another system of worker control. Of course nobody pays for the food, and we actively confront the issue of equal distribution, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, we will have to decide collectively who may need more than others etc.What if the farms and kitchens normally operate at nighttime? From the capitalist's perspective that's still seizing their means of production. And "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is for communism. Some aspects could be implemented earlier, but from a Marxist point of view you can only do so much before an actual revolution.
The work-sharing element also lends itself perfectly to a rotational form of self-management and self-governance, as at any one time half the members of this radical union will be working under capitalist relations, while the other half is co-ordinating the work-sharing (organizing the sharing of work while being receptive to the democratic will of the workers to choose, when possible, what work to undertake both in capitalist and liberated time), performing the self-managed production and distribution, self-governing the allocation of food and other products of liberated labour, and setting up squats and spreading propaganda about the movement which I will go into later. Then this will be rotated to the other half, thus preserving a horizontal, democratic and rotational structure that does not present the opportunity for a Stalinist corruption of a bureaucracy leading to centralised power.I still don't get why the worker's don't just steal the shit. They're still under centralized power under an imperialist capitalist bureaucracy, which is an even greater immediate threat than a hypothetical "Stalinist bureaucracy".
During their time opened up to worker democratic management, squatting arrangements can be sought. Most first world countries have vast amounts of empty houses and buildings, these will be democratically appropriated by the radical union for living and organising and recreational means. By refusing to pay rent this also cuts down the costs necessary for middle class subsidisation of work-sharing, thus making it more appealing amongst the mass population to take part. These costs are also decreased as more supply chains are partially liberated, supplying clothes, food and other means of life to the union outside of the capitalist value and money system.

Within the squatting living arrangements of the radical union will be the erosion of the traditional nuclear family and a return to almost tribal communal relations. Crucially, at the same time, the whole previously described process of rotational horizontal worker self-management and self-governance will amount to a change in human nature in its participants towards the ability to live under real democracy.

Any one radical union organization will be partial in its size because of the partial nature of the liberated supply chains, in terms of time and what is produced. By keeping the organisations relatively small then there will be enough fully functioning partially liberated supply chains to make half the time participating in the union consist of producing and distributing the conditions of existence as if already in an anarchist society. So the point in which the amount of middle class subsidisation required decreases is interesting, as under these conditions there could be a flow of people from all across the nation and world in and out of the radical unions for an amount of time so that they may cultivate within them a democratic nature and willingness to dismantle capitalism and replace it with this anarchist system.This part's kind of interesting. Building up a base via free housing and democratic supply measures, then erecting a structure around it.
At this point I advocate Rosa Luxembourg notion of an indefinite general strike where all production under capitalist relations is withdrawn by workers, who then have to organise things independently in order to survive. The crucial difference under my suggestion to Luxembourg is that the population will already be equipped and predisposed to pure democratic organisation, or at least large amounts that can help set up the alternative and teach others. However we here encounter the threat of bolshevism and other counter revolutionary forces, the army, the police, outside armies, all the backward forces of corrupt power. This is where we need to talk about violence.
The moment had come for the collapse of imperialism, a colossus with feet of clay, crumbling from within. The sequel of this collapse was a more or less chaotic movement, one practically devoid of a conscious plan. The only source of union, the persistent and saving principle, was the motto: “Form Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils.” That was the key notion in this revolution which, in spite of the inadequacy and weakness of the opening phases, immediately gave it the stamp of a proletarian socialist revolution. We should not forget this when we are confronted by those who shower calumnies on the Russian Bolsheviks, and we must answer: “Where did you learn the ABC’s of your present revolution? Was it not from the Russians that you learned to demand workers’ and soldiers’ councils?” [Applause] Those pygmies who today, as heads of what they falsely term a German socialist government, make it one of their chief tasks to join with the British imperialists in a murderous attack upon the Bolsheviks, also formally base their power on the workers’ and soldiers’ councils, thereby admitting that the Russian Revolution created the first mottoes for the world revolution. On the basis of the existing situation, we can predict with certainty that in whatever country, after Germany, the proletarian revolution may next break out, the first step will be the formation of workers’ and soldiers’ councils. [Murmurs of assent] https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/31.htm Luxemburg wasn't as anti-Bolshevik as is commonly claimed. Her and the Polish Social Democrats(at the time Communist were called social democrats) had positions similar to the Russian Social Democrat, the Bolsheviks. Mass strikes were used in the October Revolution. Even if you're an anarchist, you can still learn from other revolutions.
I believe militant anarchist action in the present could constitute urban guerrilla warfare training for a future people's army. However, I am not referring to violence committed towards other people such as police in the present but instead learning police tactics and resisting things like kettling during protests by organising in certain ways, some force used to get through locked doors to occupy locations, examples like that. This decentralised people's army can eventually protect radical union squats and, with a building of knowledge about police strategy, can help to co-ordinate the mass popular ghandian side of the Luxembourgist anarchist revolution, which would involve hundreds gathered round democratically controlled factories and infrastructure. Of course this should still be seen as an act of violence as the police and army could kill some people and the revolution would be responsible for those deaths even when the violence is committed by the enemy. However, confronted with hundreds of people peacefully surrounding these buildings holding hands, this could be a sight that would override the institutional soft-wiring of members of the police and armies so that they take off their uniforms and join the revolution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Command Mission command is a type of a somewhat decentralized control structure. And the revolution can be relatively bloodless. There's that Clausewitz saying "War is politics by another means". The October Revolution wasn't that violent. It wasn't decades of Gandhi prior to or during it, but most the violence came afterwards in the imperialist invasion and Civil War.

How much have you studied previous revolutions or even counterrevolutions. Some of this shit's interesting, like battling over the dimension time in a "piecework" manner, before winning over the masses, than taking infrastructure and territory.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

hi it's me again. One question - what is the point in all this intellectual haggling over a blueprint that is so divorced from concrete reality that it will never see the light of day?

I'm just wondering. Why don't we follow the more fruitful strategy of say, basing our theories on actions - essentially the marriage of these two is what praxis is, so let's not call an idea that exists only in someone's head 'praxis', because it is clearly not informed by, nor tested in, concrete situations.

[Forward Union]

I think what you're talking about is a dual power structure, taking sections of the economy over at managing them directly, while other sections of the economy are still held by the bosses. Actually this is a good strategy, and in effect, that's what a lot of Unions are doing right now.

The only thing I would add on to what you've said is that this ought to be focused on industries which can do immense damage to capitalism. If we can unionise Energy, Transport, and Weapons production in a relatively small geo-region stretching from Western Europe to the Caucuses,w e'd be able to cripple most of international capitalism with a general strike and seizure of industry. At least enough to out last the rump bourgeoisie in a second cold war.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A for effort, but it doesn't make any sense. If you have the power to force the capitalist to give up his factory at night, then you have the power to force him to give it up all together. Even if we did allow the capitalist to run his factory during the day, what in the world would he even produce? No one would buy his commodities as they could get them for free when 5pm rolls around and 'workers production' begins. Besides, with no commodities to purchase, no one would run his machines anyhow since they wouldn't need the wage hes offering any more.

Too many plot holes.